By the way... the most hardened of atheists could and should — if he cares for his fellow man and the good of his society and state — recognize that the only sexual preference and practice which should be normalized and legitimized by society and state is that of adult, married, permanent, man-with-woman couplings.

This is a Christian issue, and a religious issue, but it is not necessarily a Christian/religious issue.

See, this I don’t get. It is obviously a political message, done for a political reason, why would this be a case in the first place? Are people in Northern Ireland not able to decline based upon content?

Oh, right, it’s extra special because it’s gay.

‘I’m sorry, we declined the content that the customer wished to put on the cake. It was not something we wished to be associated with.’ Defending it with religion is just.. painful. It is like you have to justify it, which shouldn’t be the case.

9
posted on 04/04/2015 5:55:54 PM PDT
by kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)

But Mr Lee . . . claimed that being denied the couture confectionary made him feel like a lesser person when his order was rejected a few days after he made it.

Being denied the cake of his choice from the baker he chose for predatory reasons does not make him a lesser person. Throwing a juvenile hissy fit and pouting over rejection makes him a lesser person. Trying to compel a free person to act as a slave and work against their deeply-held beliefs makes him one of the most evil people alive - definitely a far lesser person.

10
posted on 04/04/2015 5:57:53 PM PDT
by Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)

I think these bakers, florists, photographers, etc., are being left out to dry. It’s shameful.

First of all, they are NOT strictly obliged to refuse to make these cakes, provide flowers, or take photographs. Gay weddings are a farce. But those who cater them or serve at them in various ways are not participating in, or even facilitating, the commission of the sin of sodomy. Sodomy is already taking place between the new “partners,” and it will continue without regard to the baker’s, florist’s, or photographer’s participation in the “wedding.”

A Catholic florist, baker, or photographer is not morally obligated to refuse his services to people who are for any reason (e.g., an existing bond of marriage) not able to contract a valid marriage.

What is most disgusting is that these people ARE taking what they believe is a principled stand, and are receiving no support—not even rhetorical support. They are standing up for the truth, while the vast majority of Catholic bishops and other clergy are cowering under their desks.

I think the businesspeople are sincere. I think they think they are morally obliged to put themselves on the line in this way. What I find disgusting is that no clergy are speaking up, either to relieve their consciences or to support them.

Well, we kept hearing how the left kept saying being a fag is natural. Guess what? Nature finds a way to eradicate abominations from it’s midst. Now if only can explain to me as well why 2 fags cannot “naturally” conceive a child while I count the chirps..

17
posted on 04/04/2015 6:31:20 PM PDT
by max americana
(fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))

File copyright/trademark claims to every possible slogan associated with deviant marriage and threaten legal action across the board if anyone fails to gain the expressed written consent of the trademark holder prior to it’s use.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.